Curated research library of TV news clips regarding the NSA, its oversight and privacy issues, 2009-2014

Click "More / Share / Borrow" for each clip's source context and citation link. HTML5 compatible browser required

Primary curation & research: Robin Chin, Internet Archive TV News Researcher; using TV News Archive service.

Speakers

James Cole
Deputy US Attorney General
CSPAN 06/18/2013
There is extensive oversight and compliance that is done with these records and with his process. Every now and then, there may be a mistake, a wrong phone number hit or a wrong person who should not have been targeted gets targeted because there is a mistake in the phone records, something like that.
James Cole
Deputy US Attorney General
CSPAN 06/18/2013
Each of those compliance incidences, if and when they occur, have to be reported to the FISA court immediately. Let me tell you the FISA court pushes back on this. They want to find out why this happened, what were the procedures and mechanisms that allowed it to happen, and what have you done to fix it. So whenever we have a compliance incident we report it to the court immediately and we report it to Congress.
James Cole
Deputy US Attorney General
CSPAN 06/18/2013
“There's a great deal of minimization procedures that are involved here, particularly concerning any of the acquisition of information that deals or comes from US persons. As I said, only targeting people outside the United States who are not US persons. But if we do acquire any information that relates to a US person, under limited criteria, only, can we keep it."
James Cole
Deputy US Attorney General
CSPAN 06/18/2013
But if we do acquire any information that relates to a US person, under limited criteria only can we keep it. If it has to do with foreign intelligence in that conversation or understanding foreign intelligence, or evidence of a crime or threat of serious bodily injury, we can respond to that. Other than that, we have to get rid of it, we have to purge it and we can’t use it.
Jim Sensenbrenner
U.S. Representative (R-Wisconsin), Chairman of Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Sensenbrenner Part 1: It appears to me that according to this letter and according to the testimony of the Feb.. Director Mueller that relevant was an expansion of what could happen rather than a limitation when the law was amended when relevant was not included in that statute. And doesn't that make a mockery of the legal standard because you're trying to have it both ways? Cole: I don't think we're trying have it both ways. Sensenbrenner: well, you sure are because you're saying
Jerrold Nadler
U.S. Representative, D-New York
CSPAN 07/17/2013
James Cole: but the collection is only there and only valuable if it is used and the use is severely restricted. Nadler: The abuse of the statute, the abuse of civil liberties, the abuse of privacy is not only misused but miscollection. If you're collecting information about my telephone when you shouldn't be doing that, that is an abuse even if you file that and never use it.
Jerrold Nadler
U.S. Representative, D-New York
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Nadler: Statute is of no comfort whatsoever. So to tell me that you go to the FISA court is irrelevant if the FISA court is doing the same abuse of the statute. So can you give me some examples where ongoing bulk collection, I'm not asking about use, has been allowed by virtue of grand jury subpoena without showing the connection between those tangible things and a specific investigation? Chairman: time of the gentleman has expired. James Cole: We'll take that as a question for the record (and depending on the rules of criminal procedure we'll see what we can get back to you.)
Zoe Lofgren
U.S. Representative, D-CA
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Lofgren: And I just recently reviewed a annual report on section 215. Is it true that the or isn't it true that the annual 215 report to the committee is less than a single page and not more than eight sentences? Cole: I think that the 215 annual reports are quite a bit less than the 702 annual reports.
Zoe Lofgren
U.S. Representative, D-CA
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Lofgren: I just asked a question. Is that about the size of your recollection? Cole: I'd have to go back to answer directly. Lofgren: is it true that the report of the number of applications really gives the committee information as to the amount of records impacted? Cole: the number of applications, is there a direct correlation between the number of entities impacted or the number of record?
Zoe Lofgren
U.S. Representative, D-CA
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Cole: Impacted will depend on how many phone numbers have been called. Lofgren: you report the number of applications but it would have no relationship to the number of records acquired? Cole: no, not necessarily. Lofgren: thank you very much.
James Cole
Deputy Attorney General
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Chaffetz and Cole Part 1: Cole: there are things in between. This may be one of those. It is certainly not content. It probably tends more towards metadata. This is an evolving area of the law. Chaffetz: how is it evolving? We haven’t. This is what scares me about what you are doing and how you are doing it. If you knew exactly where I was standing, you are telling me that that’s not content? Cole: that’s not the content of your conversation, no. And
Jason Chaffetz
U.S. Representative, R-Utah
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Chaffetz and Cole (Inglis) Part 2:Cole: You are standing out in public any number of other people may see you there. Chaffetz: So but If you are standing out in public any number of other people may see you there. Chaffetz: if I were standing on private property -- Cole: this is part of what Jones talks about, the trespass issue. Chaffetz: they ruled 5-0 it was an overstep and an overreach. So Are you collecting that data? Cole: we are not collecting that data. Chaffetz: let me ask the NSA. Is the NSA collecting this data? Inglis: We are not collecting that data under this program. We believe that the authority
Jason Chaffetz
U.S. Representative, R-Utah
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Chaffetz and Cole (and Inglis) Part 3: Inglis continued: could be granted by the courts to collect that attribute. We have not done that. And as Mr. Cole indicated earlier, the director of NSA has given an affirmation to the Congress that before such time we were to reconsider that decision, we would come back to the Congress.
Jason Chaffetz
U.S. Representative, R-Utah
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Chaffetz and Cole Part 6: Chaffetz: by thousands of camera readers and stored about a specific location. Does that fall within this category? Cole: in which category? Chaffetz: license plate readers. Cole: The whole issue comes down to the expectation of privacy. This is what the court bases its ruling on. Chaffetz: Do you believe that I have a reasonable expectation of privacy
Jason Chaffetz
U.S. Representative, R-Utah
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Chaffetz and Cole Part 7: Chaffetz: on private property. Cole: In general, I think the courts are saying that there’s a trespass theory that gives you a reasonable expectation of privacy depending on who’s property it is, whether it’s your own or somebody else's, how many other people are there. These are all of the types of issues that would go into that. Chaffetz: My time has expired, Mr. Chairman, this is something we have much more thoroughly understand. There is guidance out
Jason Chaffetz
U.S. Representative, R-Utah
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Chaffetz and Cole Part 4: Chaffetz: What other bits of information fall in this gap between metadata and content? What is this third category that you’re talking about? What’s the right word for it? Cole: I’m not sure it’s just a third category, Mr. Chaffetz . I think there’s metadata that was described by the court in Smith vs. Maryland. Which is the telephone records we were talking about and were covered by the 215 program that we’ve been discussing today. There’s content, which is the
Jason Chaffetz
U.S. Representative, R-Utah
CSPAN 07/17/2013
Chaffetz and Cole Part 5: Cole: actual, the conversations themselves, that people have, and there are any number of things that may fall in between those and it is not just a third category it’s probably a continuum. Chaffetz: What else would be in that continuum? Cole: Sorry? Chaffetz: What else would be in that continuum? Cole: it's hard for me to just hypothesize about all the many different things that could be out there and fall in the continuum. Chaffetz: There’s a report out there today about license plates and that information that’s being collected
Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senator, Judiciary Committee Chairman
CSPAN 07/31/2013
Leahy continued 2: all those things available? Cole: I think there’s two important points here. Number one is that the only way the court finds these relevant is in the context of the restrictions and in features the context of what it is you’re looking for. So you have to take all of those features of this phone record process into account of, how can it be done? How reasonably can it be done, what is the need for speed?
Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senator, Judiciary Committee Chairman
CSPAN 07/31/2013
Cole continued: What is the need to integrate all the different records that are coming together? And finds only when you look at that entire mix, that this kind of program with these restrictions. To your question, you would have to make that same showing for those other kinds of records as to the need for that breadth and the need for those restrictions. Leahy: if our phone records are relevant, why wouldn’t our credit card records? Wouldn't you like to know if somebody’s buying fertilizer used in bombs?
Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senator, Judiciary Committee Chairman
CSPAN 07/31/2013
Cole: I may not need to collect everybody’s credit card records in order to do that. Because again, we’re not collecting all their phone records so that we can wander through them and it’s only the phone records being done to look at the connections. If somebody’s buying things that could be used to make bombs, of course we would like to know that but we may not need to do it in this fashion. Leahy: Dr. Clapper said it would
Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senator, Judiciary Committee Chairman
CSPAN 07/31/2013
Leahy continued 1A: notify Congress before obtaining cell phone location information under this program. But is there any legal impediment to expanding the program for cell phone location? Cole: I don’t believe there would be a legal impediment. And yesterday the 5th circuit issued a ruling that goes to that issue but the legal impediments are not the only issues that you take into account here. Leahy: I understand
Chuck Grassley
U.S. Senator, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member
CSPAN 07/31/2013
Grassley, Cole, Litt, Inglis: Cole: Nobody is listening to anybody's conversations through this program and through program, nobody could. No information like that is being collected through this program. Grassley: Mr. Litt, section 215 contains a requirement that records collected under the program, and --on be relevant to authorized investigation. As a legal matter, how can you justify the assertion that phone records of millions of Americans who have nothing to do with terrorism are relevant to an authorized investigation under section
Chuck Grassley
U.S. Senator, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member
CSPAN 07/31/2013
Grassley, Cole, Litt continued 3: Litt: records are relevant. Grassley: Is there any legal precedent that supports such a broad definition of relevance to an investigation? Litt: I’d actually defer that to the Deputy Attorney General Grassley: OK Cole: The legal precedent comes from the history of all the orders that have been issued. The courts having looked at this under the FISA law and under the provisions of 215 and making sure that under the provision (of 215)
Chuck Grassley
U.S. Senator, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member
CSPAN 07/31/2013
Grassley, Cole, Litt continued 4: Cole: (of 215) and the ability to get these records relevant to a criminal, rather– a foreign intelligence investigation, they have gone through the law that Mr.. Litt has described. On I believe 34 different occasions to do this analysis. So that legal precedent is there.
Mike Lee
U.S. Senator, R-Utah
CSPAN 07/31/2013
Lee continued: It’s not the government’s information. It still doesn’t make it relevant under the law. It still doesn’t meet what many of my constituents believe to be within their reasonable expectation of privacy. For the government to collect that much information, potentially information of 300 million Americans. Cole: i would say two things. First of all we have had 34 separate times
James Cole
Deputy Attorney General
CSPAN 07/31/2013
Cole continued: where the courts say that does meet the standard of relevance. To have it all and then have the restrictions. But the further thing that is very important, is what we are doing today. It is worth having a debate about, is there a better way to do it. – it’s worth having a debate about where we strike that balance between security for the nation and making people’s privacy and civil liberty rights are being honored. That's a tough balance to find, but it’s a balance worth talking about and It is a process we are welcoming and engaging in right now.
Sheldon Whitehouse
U.S. Senator, D-Rhode Island
CSPAN 07/31/2013
Whitehouse continued 6: because you never took the appropriate steps to put news out about this program that would have avoided, I think, a lot of this. And I’d like you to have a chance to react to that. Cole: I think you make a valid point. These are all topics that we need to debate. They’re not easy topics because they involve again that same balancing. The same balancing that we are trying to do between
Sheldon Whitehouse
U.S. Senator, D-Rhode Island
CSPAN 07/31/2013
Cole continued: national security and civil liberties. And what kinds of programs we put into place to gain intelligence information. it is the same kind of debate we need to have about what’s classified and what’s not classified and what secrets we let out. If it was easy, we would be having this left and right. From what I’ve seen, that the executive branch is doing it, to disadvantage the legislative branch. Whitehouse: it does have that effect. Cole: It may have that effect. And I would concede that. Whitehouse: I think it’s done
James Cole
Deputy US Attorney General
CSPAN 08/01/2013
I want to make absolutely sure that I understand the scope of 215. First Question. What information does the government collect under this program, and specifically, is anyone's name, address, social security number, or location collected? Cole: Senator Grassley, first, to answer the second part, name, address, location social security number is not collected
Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senator, Judiciary Committee Chairman
CSPAN 12/11/2013
Leahy: So to restart the bulk collection of internet data, would you have to go to the court? Litt: I believe we would. Leahy: Mr. Cole? Cole: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Under the FISA statute, i think you would have to get court authority just like you would under 215 to be able to do that. And that would only last for a period of time. it would have to be renewed periodically. there's no active authority for it right now.
Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senator, Judiciary Committee Chairman
CSPAN 12/11/2013
Leahy: The FISA pen register statute authorize you to obtain all internet meta data, not just e-mail meta data? Cole: I think that is correct. Again, it would be limited to the meta data in that regard.
Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senator, Judiciary Committee Chairman
CSPAN 12/11/2013
Leahy: the only limitation (under the FISA pen register statute) would be that it would be meta data? Cole: It cannot be content. In the latest order of the FISA court under 215, it specifically excluded cell site location as well. Litt: I was going to add only that you'd have to show that the categories of meta data that you're seeking was, in fact, relevant to the authorized investigation.
Mark Udall
Senator (D-Colorado) Member of Select Committee on Intelligence
CSPAN2 06/05/2014
Udall: So Mr. Cole, let me ask you, even if it is not the intent of this administration or even of this Congress, what would stop the FISA court from interpreting the specific selection term very broadly should the government asked it to do so? Cole: I think a lot of what would prohibit that is the legislative history, the statements of intent, the legislative history that we’re creating here today by making clear and unambiguous statements that isn't intended to stop bulk collection and that what we are focusing on is some focused, tailored inquiries that will depend on the facts and circumstances and it's impossible to predict all of them ahead of time. But to make sure that we do have focused inquiries and focused collection of information for our investigations.
James Cole
Deputy US Attorney General
CSPAN2 06/05/2014
Cole: If there’s improvements that people want to suggest we’re happy to work with them on them but we think the language does it by using terms like specific and identifiers and things of that nature to make it not the indiscriminate bulk collection that have been going on before. And I think also just the reports that have come out of the House, the statements that are being made both by you Senators in the course of your comments and by the witnesses that come before you as making up the legislative history. Those would constrain it.
Mark Udall
Senator (D-Colorado) Member of Select Committee on Intelligence
CSPAN2 06/05/2014
Cole: I think in addition if there were an interpretation by the FISA court that it is very broad, that would be a novel and significant order and opinion and would be given to the United States Congress, given to the Senate, and the Senate would then have an opportunity to pass additional legislation to rein it back in. But I would be very, very surprised to see it go in that direction based on the language that's here and the legislative history. Udall: We do have a moment in time where we have to get this right, and with all due respect I don't remember the FISA court showing a great deal of restraint in the past.
Showing 1 through 35 of 35
Page 1